OBJECTIVES: To compare processes and timings of regulatory and subsidized access systems for medicines across seven jurisdictions within the Asia-Pacific region. METHODS: A questionnaire was developed focusing on regulatory and health technology assessment-based subsidized access processes and timings in each of the seven surveyant's jurisdictions. RESULTS: Australia and Thailand are the only two jurisdictions that formally allow the subsidized access evaluation process to be conducted in parallel with the regulatory evaluation process. Australian, Japanese, Korean, New Zealand, and Taiwanese systems afford broad coverage, whereas Chinese and Thai systems provide limited coverage for medicines under patent. Subsidized access systems for all jurisdictions except Thailand have an associated patient co-payment for each medicine/prescription. The biggest disparity across the study group relates to time from regulatory submission to subsidized access of patented medicines-ranging from just over 1 year (Japan) to a minimum of 5 years (China). CONCLUSIONS: There is consistency across the seven jurisdictions studied in relation to regulatory and subsidized patient access processes-that is, regulatory approval is required before subsidized access review; subsidized access coverage is broad; and the cost of medicine subsidization is offset, in part, by patient co-payments. Although local differences will always exist in relation to budget and pricing negotiation, there may be efficiencies that can be applied across systems to improve time to subsidized access. Closer understanding of regulatory and subsidized access systems can lead to best-practice sharing and, ultimately, timely access and better health outcomes for patients.
OBJECTIVES: To compare processes and timings of regulatory and subsidized access systems for medicines across seven jurisdictions within the Asia-Pacific region. METHODS: A questionnaire was developed focusing on regulatory and health technology assessment-based subsidized access processes and timings in each of the seven surveyant's jurisdictions. RESULTS: Australia and Thailand are the only two jurisdictions that formally allow the subsidized access evaluation process to be conducted in parallel with the regulatory evaluation process. Australian, Japanese, Korean, New Zealand, and Taiwanese systems afford broad coverage, whereas Chinese and Thai systems provide limited coverage for medicines under patent. Subsidized access systems for all jurisdictions except Thailand have an associated patient co-payment for each medicine/prescription. The biggest disparity across the study group relates to time from regulatory submission to subsidized access of patented medicines-ranging from just over 1 year (Japan) to a minimum of 5 years (China). CONCLUSIONS: There is consistency across the seven jurisdictions studied in relation to regulatory and subsidized patient access processes-that is, regulatory approval is required before subsidized access review; subsidized access coverage is broad; and the cost of medicine subsidization is offset, in part, by patient co-payments. Although local differences will always exist in relation to budget and pricing negotiation, there may be efficiencies that can be applied across systems to improve time to subsidized access. Closer understanding of regulatory and subsidized access systems can lead to best-practice sharing and, ultimately, timely access and better health outcomes for patients.